280 posts • joined 19 Apr 2007
I'm not sure why any such laws should target just phones and embedded (IoT) stuff.
Surely if you're going to make "laws" it should be along the lines of provide security updates for *any* software as long as possible and at the point that the vendor is no longer able to provide updates (doesn't want to or goes bust) they must release their source code and tools to make it possible for someone else to fix the issue.
Re: What's the real market size of x86 vs ARM
I'm not sure it's fair to compare Intel and ARM really.
ARM vs Renesas would be a better comparison because of they both have designs for microcontroller applications through to relatively high performance. I think the fact that Renesas is also shipping ARM chips shows they are doing something right.
Re: It does affect OSX
Re: Of Google software and battery drain
That appears to be a problem specific to Sony devices. Not sure how that is Google's fault. It's very possible that something in the Play Services triggers something in Sony devices that cause them to fully wake and that causes extra battery usage. The thing is the play services are used by other apps so it may very well be that one of Sony's shovel-ware apps is what is causing play services to be active... It's sort of like blaming the milk for running out when you open the bottom of the carton.
Re: But isn't it event driven?!
>Chrome sets up a polling loop with 1ms
I think I misunderstood your post because you have misunderstood what the issue is.
It seems that Chrome plays with the platform timer. That's not a "polling loop".
If a user process playing with that is an issue it shouldn't be available to user processes unless they run as a super user.
Re: But isn't it event driven?!
>An operating system is normally event driven,
Timers generate events.
>ultimately from interrupts that come from external sources such as keyboards,
>network and timers. There should be no polling.
How do you do pre-emptive multitasking if external interrupts are the only way to jump out of the running user task and re-enter the kernel?
Re: Of Google software and battery drain
>Perhaps you could start by explaining what Google Play
Perhaps you could explain why you *think* it's google play that is using all that power..
Sounds like an issue with how Windows uses the platform timer opposed to Chrome causing the battery drain.
Why is something that can cause issues like this available to user applications in the first place?
>And that doesn't look like a very clever idea now, does it. Come to think of it,
So you want apps to be able to mess around in the /system partition and make your device unbootable?
>Google must have looked at Linux, OS X and Windows (to name but a few) with
> their auto updating mechanisms and decided that pushable updates were a bad idea.
Google has moved more of the userland into the playstore so that it can be updated. OTA updates are supported for the OS itself. If vendors don't want to ship OTA updates then I'm not sure what exactly Google is meant to do other than take back control of the OS builds vendors ship (via their Nexus etc devices). When they do that they are accused of being control freaks. They really can't win.
>Or you could do it properly, which is what Microsoft have tried (and mostly succeeded) to do.
I'm not sure Windows update is the pinnacle of OS updating schemes. If you said they should have looked at apt or yum you might have a point.
>Which is, define a hardware architecture to which manufacturers must comply,
>and then MS can push out updates as and when necessary.
Never going to be possible for phones unless you only ship a very restricted set of devices. It's working for Apple but not for MS. Apple use the same scheme as Android devices should for OS fixes btw.
>Another option would be for Google to keep a legacy kernel interface and
>driver model in newer versions of Android. One commonly cited reason
>for so many handsets being left on the 2.3 Gingerbread is because so
> many things changed in the kernel in 4.0 Ice Cream.
Linux has backports for things like WiFi drivers etc and options in the kernel to make it compatible with older userland utils etc. That won't stop chip vendors being lazy.
>Now, if only Google can learn that lesson too..
Not sure what you're really referring too but I had to make a guess I would think this is about Android and vendors not shipping updates? OS level updates can't be pushed out via Play. The Android system partition is read only for a good reason. I guess what Google needs to do is either get more vendors shipping vanilla builds that Google will manage the over the air updates for or split the system partition up a bit so that vendors can add their junk in there but google can offer partial OTA updates for vital security updates. Kernel updates will be tricky as usually SoC vendors are very lazy. They'll get some old crap version of Linux working, release that as a BSP and forget about it. So if fixes for major issues are pushed to the Linux mainline it may take forever for those fixes to actually appear in the kernels for all of the devices out there.
The steps between "git push origin master" and a patch being deployed on millions of devices are more complex than fixing the issue itself in most cases.
The drama level in this article makes it initially seem the PRNG itself is broked.. which it isn't.
The logic to tell the PRNG that it's in a new process and needs to flush it's state being broken is a lot less "oh noes the sky is falling in! won't somebody think of the security!" I guess.
The process has worked: There was an issue, someone spotted it, the LibreSSL guys stated that it wasn't a big deal but they got on and fixed it. If things continue this way we might actually have a decent opensource TLS library eventually. Slightly off-topic; eglibc (a fork of glibc) has recently been dropped in favour of going back to glibc in Debian. Why? Because forking glibc and fixing a ton of crap that was wrong with it worked. glibc is now open to development and stupid historical mess due to one guy having a strangle hold on the project is getting cleaned up. LibreSSL could wipe out OpenSSL or OpenSSL could consume LibreSSL. Either way we should end up with something less crap and more maintainable.
>I really don't get the IoT Home Automation thing
I have a certain bias in this area (covered by NDA) but even I can see a lot of it is just junk.
But there are some good things out there...
You don't want or need every switch in your house to be internet controlled of course but adding some intelligence to certain systems in your home is a good thing. If you have something in your home that relies on the weather or can be made more efficient by monitoring weather patterns then that makes a good candidate for being made into an internet thing. Those devices wouldn't need to send any data out and could be purely data consumers too.
Maybe you have something in your home that would turn into an "oh shit" moment if it went wrong and you didn't notice while you were at work. Maybe you have a sensitive tropical fish tank that the contents of which would die if the pump system stopped working for too long. With some simple IoT tech you could have those systems tell you when "oh shit" is about to happen when you're not around.
Again, I don't think anyone except people that have to have everything shiny will need every light switch in the house hosting it's own embedded system but I think most people have one or two systems in their home that could be made more efficient or safer with some intelligence built into it.
>There are issues with using an IP-based system.
>If you change ISP or router and your home IP addresses change
Surely this is why they want IPv6. It's almost impossible to stop IPv6 from configuring itself.
>Linux 3.0 kernel
I hope that's a typo or misunderstanding.
Re: Disposable passwords for disposable accounts
Same here. I often have to sign up to get datasheets or software for things.
I use one of my set of 3 crap passwords for it and forget about it. If I need to login again I know it's one of the crap passwords.
Re: Ungrateful trolls
>Your continual anti-Pi stance is tedious in the extrem
To be honest I was being tongue in cheek with my first comment about the broken USB.
The problem is you piboys get all defensive of your little platform and start trying to make excuses or claim there are no problems.
Now you're trying to make out I have some little grudge against the Pi that is as emotionally based as your love affair with a PCB. "Don't say nasty things or my mates will stick the lawyers on you boohoo".
It really is pathetic.
Re: @Daniel Palmer
I'm in Japan so you would think they would ship them by registered post to here but they won't unless something has changed recently. $40 DHL shipping isn't really worth it on a single board. If they would stock at Digikey or something that would be great as usually it's free shipping on orders >$70 and that's still lower than the minimum for import duty.
Re: Ungrateful trolls
>They were the interface from the ARM to the GPU hardware.
*Sigh* you are reiterating the same drivel that Liz and chums did.
Aside from the issues with the hardware, being stuck with a fudge debian port etc I think the thing that rubs me up the wrong way the most with piboys is this religious parroting of the official dogma.
I.e. I was looking into what it takes to make the pi run on 3.3v for doing telemetry on a quad copter. According to high ups (read: people with badges) on the pi forums it was impossible.. even when someone had already done it and had documented it. *facepalm*
Re: @Daniel Palmer
>This new version of the Raspi fixes the problem with hot plugging of USB.
So it took 3M units to spin a new revision that fixes a major issue. Awesome.
>FTDI chips should now work fine.
Nope. They still get into a locked up state with the latest kernel.
>That's the software fix I was talking about.
Do you have a link to the commit that "fixes" it?
>latest firmware and kernel (it appears your version is woefully out of date)
This board is running the 3.10 kernel. One of the others I have is running the 3.12 kernel. Same issues.
>SD cards wear out.
Not in the way we were seeing. Stop making assumptions.
>There are techniques you can use to reduce the amount of accesses
>to the SD card which helps a lot.
Have you worked with ubifs etc?
>Since you seem so well versed in SoC availability and what the market wants,
There are already boards out there. I'm putting together a new mc68000 machine that runs Linux if you're feeling wild though.
>The BBB sales are terrible,
The BBB sells out as soon as batches run off of the production line.
>Raspberry Pi competitor out there?
The BB and BBB are "better". If you want to stump down a bit more cash then the Wandboard is amazing for $100. The hardkernel boards are insane (suffer from the crappy USB ethernet issue that goes hand in hand with SoCs designed for phones though). Olimex has some nice boards.. there are some tiny boards based on Atmel chips with older ARM designs that are coming out at around 20 euro that will fit well with people that want to embedded them into a project and forget about them. I don't think there's a lack of boards out there just a lack of "opening your fucking eyes" and some weird basis towards the Pi.
>It's been TWO YEARS. You would have thought there would be one by now.
See expletive above.
>And yet there isn't one at the same price point
The prices aren't that much different and usually the performance and features is many times more than the price difference.
>the Raspberry Pi has hit the sweet spot of price vs performance
Or people are cheap and won't pay $10 or $20 for a board that is better supported (can run stock Debian/armhf etc) and performs better. I suspect many of the Pis out there are being used for cheap media servers, XBMC etc applications and people that actually want to do some hacking are the ones that are clearing out the BBB stocks.
Re: Ungrateful trolls
>those drivers is untruthful.
Except that they weren't drivers.
Re: @Daniel Palmer
>Your information on the USB is out of date.
I think you're under the assumption I don't actually have any raspberry pi on hand to check this;
daniel@mirmachina:~$ ssh pi@shitpi
Enter passphrase for key '/home/daniel/.ssh/id_rsa':
Linux raspberrypi 3.10.25+ #622 PREEMPT Fri Jan 3 18:41:00 GMT 2014 armv6l
I have some green pi, I have some Chinese red pi .. I have no pi that doesn't reboot when USB devices are inserted or the usb doesn't lock up after a few days in action with certain devices like FTDI USB to serial chips. I have some clients with hundreds of pis deployed and they all have the same issues or even worse kill SD cards. I wonder if it's a PSU issue.. oh wait, this pi is running on it's own Cosel (that's a good brand btw) 10A industrial power supply.
>The huge majority of issues with it have been fixed.
Software fixes aren't going to fix issues that seem to be down to inrush current when inserting USB devices.
>If you are going to continue to slag off the Raspberry Pi,
>please make sure your facts are correct first.
>mustn't cost more than £50, what core would you suggest?
BBB is less than 50 quid.
This guy is 30 euro:
This is 40 euro:
This one has 4 1.7ghz cores and is $65 (their shipping does suck though):
You realise criticising the Pi is strictly outlawed here right? I doubt anyone will be polite enough to actually address what you wrote instead of accusing you of being a child hater.
>Now adding bits and bobs to it bumps up the price....
You never know.. They might have got a better deal on the parts for this board and that reduces their BoM cost. You'd be surprised how different the price of components is when you're talking about ordering batches of 10000+
>i would have thought the higher end ARMs would have come down in price sine the PIs launch
Higher end ARMs are cheap as chips. You can get TV sticks with gigs of RAM, gigs of NAND and multiple recent ARM cores for almost nothing now. The problem is those chips aren't usually very open. But things are getting better. There are companies in the east and west producing boards around those chips now. Olimex have some boards that aren't much more expensive than the Pi.. there is the beaglebone black etc etc.
>usb Ethernet adapter?
Considering how bad the "on board" usb ethernet already is do you think it would be wise to add yet another usb ethernet interface to the mix?
>What I'm looking for is something with 2 ethernet ports so I can run a small firewall
>such as IPcop..
The shame with the beaglebone black is that it has another ethernet port but the pins for it aren't on the cape headers.. I want to do a cape with a micrel 4 port managed switch but alas it was not meant to be. All of this stuff is 100mbit anyhow. If you want something with gigabit interfaces and gigabit phys attached you need to look for something based on the Marvell Armada or similar that's made for NAS work.
So it's the same crap old ARM core with some extra ports on the on-board usb hub?
I guess more usb ports that barely work is key to saving the children.
Re: There is a secondary possibility: IPv6
>Japan had to go IPv6 much earlier
I still only have ipv4 from my ISP.. The initial setup of the fibre (which is owned by NTT) to configure it for the ISP was done over ipv6 and some part of that setup is broken as it gives out ipv6 addresses that should public but aren't even after the setup has finished. So here in the middle of no where its still as badly deployed as anywhere else in the world. VPS and dedicated server providers do give you ipv6 addresses for free here but a lot European companies like hetzner do that too.
I wonder if mark karpeles will be applying for this position.
H-Station sounds like the name of a shop that sells porno and/or sex toys...
Anyhow, hope this works out better than electric cars. The one electric charging point around here (rural Japan but not too far from built up areas like Tokyo) has turned into an employee parking space due to no one ever using it.
Re: and the SP also promise that running your home will be secure
>Smartmeter hacks on mass
What would you gain from hacking a smart meter? It doesn't have any control over the mains AFAIK.
Re: Isn't Android open source in the first place?
>That said - who needs Android on a TV, anyway? - But that is another question.
Android is already replacing windows CE in some places. I.e. I know that some STBs here in Japan are running android even if its not outwardly apparent. You'll see android all over the place.. I wonder if it'll end up replacing windows XP embedded in cash machines at some point.
Of course people can take the AOSP source and do what they like with it.. Otherwise there wouldn't have been Android tablets before that was officially supported. What Google is trying to do here is stopping vendors like Samsung from shipping products with Google's branded services for that particular class of device but fucking up the UI with poorly thought out brain farts and creating issues with their custom styles etc that don't replicate the behaviour of the stock styles properly.
Android being open has nothing to do with devs shipping API keys in their apps and not restricting the use of those keys based on the APK signature etc.
Any platform where you integrate third party SDKs via API keys or other magic numbers will have the same issue. This is probably just as rife on <insert platform you like>.
Re: only a quarter?
>Why would a developer need to embed their private key?
I guess this about apps with embedded API keys like those for gmaps,facebook etc.. those keys will have to be somewhere in the app but the use of the keys should be restricted by using something like the signature of the APK.
I have to confess I actually made this mistake in a way. I left my bug reporting key in the source of an app when I uploaded it to googlecode. So some muppets came along, changed the package name of the app and are now selling it on the Playstore. They went far enough to add a ton of in app ads but not far enough to remove/change the crash reporting. So I was getting crash reports for their fork until I changed the api key.
Re: Sounds fair enough
>would allow reliability testing of the technology as everyone would have
>multiple redundant copies to check against.
Writing data to flash once under factory conditions doesn't really test what flash goes through in the the real world.
>but also raises questions about why Azure is relying on Ipv4
Because (according to the quality of comments on articles IPv6 on el reg) network administrators don't like typing and are incapable of finding tools to make their lives easier or writing their own so they have slowed the uptake of IPv6 tremendously. If 90%+ of your users have no way to access your server via IPv6 you're going to need an IPv4 address too.
>and how Redmond let itself run out of IPv4 addresses.
Because there aren't any left. How many decades of people repeatedly saying that there simply aren't enough free addresses to scale to current and future demand does it take for the message to get through?
>teach everyone to code
"coding" and "designing and implementing OS level code" are very very different things. If you understood that you might realise that your whole comment is complete and utter tripe.
Teaching kids how to do some basic or html/js/css is not going to create a generation of programmers that can rival the top Linux/*BSD etc guys.
It's very easy for the people pushing this shit to think that "coding" is a single subject the everyone can learn and then implement anything but implementing a web app in PHP or Ruby is a bit different from implementing OS level code or compilers.
I find it pretty amusing that a lot of the people pushing this agenda apparently have zero idea what coding is. How do you get kids that could be good "coders" into "code"? Maybe by leaving Logo turtles, Arduino style kits etc around the place so that kids that have a chance to pick something up and have a crack at it. Forcing it down their necks is going to do more harm than good.
Re: So GnuTLS is badly implemented according to one email 6 years ago
>Is it possible that maybe you need a third, non-shit alternative?
Yes, we need a non-shit TLS library that: Is multi-licensed so it can be linked with lots of existing software, has an API that is compatible with OpenSSL and/or GnuTLS so we can run existing binaries with it.. the count for workable opensource TLS libraries is probably around 5. Number of libraries that fit the previous requirements: 0. You know, it might be a good idea to fix security issues in libraries we depend on but can't readily replace!
> No, but you could presumably submit a patch that used counted length data blobs
Have you verified that the stated issue is A: actually an issue, B: still exists in the code base 6 years later, C: can be fixed without breaking the rest of the library? Nope. So you don't have an alternative, you have a posting on a forum,.. you know what I'll stick to having RedHat employees looking for and fixing stuff and Debian picking up those patches.
Re: There are reasons that GnuTLS has to be used in some situations
@Destroy All Monsters
>What kind of "Could well be Unfit for Purpose" is unclear to you?
According to one guy 6 years ago. And this is about a patch that apparently fixes some of it's crapness. Anyone would think you would be happy.
>Thus GNU License trumps Fitness For Purpose.
>The sadness of License True Believers (LTBs) in a double negative.
I don't like the GPL in some cases. That doesn't stop other people licensing their stuff under the GPL (I know right, people doing what they like with their own stuff, inconsiderate bastards) but if it's GPL you have to follow the rules and that means a GPL licensed TLS library is required. There aren't many of those around. So I'm just glad people are taking the time to fix issues in GnuTLS because however shitty it is according to one random post you googled some people have to put up with it.
>With that kind of attitude, you ain't gonna get much traction, kid.
I don't know you but I'll use your impressive discussion technique. Bugger off old man, you're smelling up the joint.
Re: Open source - crap code
>So I take it that every morning on your way to work,
>when you see a pot hole you stop and fill it in,
You pay taxes for someone to maintain the roads for you.
Opensource licenses usually give you rights to do whatever you like with the code on the agreement that said code comes with absolutely no warranty or assurance that it's fit for purpose. That's why some people like to use opensource but pay someone like RedHat to maintain it and support them when they need support. The guy that found this bug is a RedHat guy isn't he? So someone at RedHat found a bug, it got fixed and an announcement was made so everyone doesn't ignore the update.... so the only difference to closed source here is that the issue and the fix have been made public and even people that don't pay RedHat benefit.
Re: There are reasons that GnuTLS has to be used in some situations
>I don't see how that follows the initial post that says
The original post is suggesting that GnuTLS is bad. No one has said it isn't. There are reasons that OpenSSL can't be used in some places. And OpenSSL is just as hairy if the recent noise about it is to be believed. So GnuTLS is badly implemented according to one email 6 years ago. Whoopee.
>Isn't this the "amazing alternative" you're asking for?
Can I compile that email into a library that applications that link against GnuTLS can use?
Re: Open source was supposed to be secure
If you can't do it yourself then pay someone to do it.
Re: Open source was supposed to be secure
>Please remind me, wasn't open source supposed to make huge
>security problems like this a thing of the past,
Were there headlines about security issues like heartbleed when the first BSD, GNU etc releases had just come out? I don't think so and I don't think many of the big advocates of opensource has ever said that stuff being opensource will make security issues go away. Most of the opensource licenses date from a time where MMUs weren't common.
If anything opensource is about getting off of your ass and doing something instead of waiting for other people to do it for you. "You have the source, if you don't like it you fix it".
Re: Someone is actually using GnuTLS?
Maybe you should have read some of the follow ups:
There are reasons that GnuTLS has to be used in some situations and it's not because of it's fantastic quality.
I'm also not sure what your comment brings to the table either really. So GnuTLS is internally quite badly implemented or at least it was in 2008. So because of that people shouldn't try to fix security issues in it? Every time C is mentioned you keep making out like there is some amazing alternative out there but never seem to actually say what it is.. Do you have a replacement for GnuTLS that is GPL compatible and will just plug into all of the apps out there that are using GnuTLS?
>No one really recovers from their first unexplained segfault
> on a programming assignment, do they?
If you are taught C but not taught on how to use a debugger then you need a better teacher I guess.
C doesn't have super fancy exception handling and most of the time it's up to the OS to catch your mistakes but you can make the same mistakes in almost any language. Your first segfault should serve to teach you how to find your mistake with a debugger (or the raw address and addr2line), what you did wrong and why not to do what you did again in the future.
I actually like turning up weird issues like compiler optimization errors.. like GCC breaking alignment rules for floats on some ARM machines. Issues like that have taught me a fair bit and earned me some cash in the process.
Re: I wonder...
This isn't stealth installing. The "stealth" part is presumably about the fact that Google hasn't put out a press release saying "NEW IN MINOR SERVICE RELEASE: MORE FEATURES! MORE FASTER! MORE BETTERER!". Obviously Google are complete bastards for not putting out a character by character run down of every single line that has changed between this minor service release and the previous one.
>From the look of things, this is a minor update.
>The codename of the OS is still "KitKat," and you probably
> shouldn't worry about any significant platform
> fragmentation from this release
This paragraph makes absolutely no sense and even less sense when we're talking about recent nexus devices that are all already running 4.x releases from Google and can't actually suffer from "fragmentation" which is problem with the same android release being cocked up by vendors. Google is the only vendor and the upstream developer here. Maybe you actually meant that this is small release so it doesn't bring any api changes or something instead.. But that still wouldn't be a concern to most people upgrading their devices. I know the reg is meant to be tongue in cheek but you guys are basically just spreading FUD.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great